Consolidation etc. Bills Committee
Debate between Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Sewel
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Sewel)
My Lords, I beg to move the 27 Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper—fortunately, en bloc.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, I fear that it is that time of year again, as the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees put it when we last approved our EU Committee on 16 May 2013. Everything I said then remains valid for this proposed committee. Its composition is heavily Europhile with, so far as I can see, only two mildly Eurosceptic Peers out of its 19 proposed members, of whom at least eight are among the most ardent Europhiles in your Lordships’ House. I accept that the noble Lord’s task is not easy and that your Lordships’ House is a very Europhile place, perhaps because it contains so many former EU Commissioners and employees in receipt of forfeitable EU pensions, and so many former Foreign Secretaries and Ministers of the Crown who have played their part in this great country paying billions a year to Brussels to take our sovereignty from us. Indeed, I estimate that there are perhaps only eight out of roughly 750 active Peers in your Lordships’ House who are prepared to say publicly that we should leave the EU forthwith, without the charade of renegotiating the terms of our membership.
That is why I have been asking the Prime Minister to fulfil his commitment to make the composition of this House better reflect the votes cast at the previous general election. It is not because I agree with that policy, which is clearly very misguided. I imagine we all agree that one of the great strengths of your Lordships’ House is precisely that it does not reflect the composition of the House of Commons. However, I have been using the Prime Minister’s promise in an attempt to get some improvement on the present imbalance, to which I have referred. I should now correct last Saturday’s BBC News coverage in this respect because I never asked for the 23 new UKIP Peers which our vote at the previous general election would indicate. I have suggested four, or perhaps six, but without success.
I ask yet again whether we need six EU sub-committees, whose resources could be redistributed over many other subject areas where your Lordships’ House does such valuable work for the nation. In other areas, apart from the EU, I submit that your Lordships are often more in touch with British public opinion and interest than is the House of Commons, which is why your Lordships’ reports on those subjects are so respected by the nation.
By contrast, our EU reports are routinely ignored here and in Brussels where it is hard to find a recommendation that has been accepted. Between January 2010 and June 2013, the latest period for which figures are available, the scrutiny reserve of our committees was overridden 298 times in either or both Houses— 235 times in your Lordships’ House alone. Not that Brussels appears to take much notice of our Government’s views either. Our Government have been outvoted in the Council of Ministers on every one of the 55 objections they have raised against new EU legislation since 1996.
I suggest we reject this Motion today and respectfully request the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees to return with a more balanced composition for the committee and without our agreement for any sub-committees at all.
I conclude by suggesting that the first task of our new committee should be to report to the British people how EU law-making, which makes so much of our national law, actually works, of which they are at present largely ignorant. I suggest it would be helpful, as we approach renegotiation of the treaty of Rome, if our people understood how the unelected EU Commission has the sole right to propose all EU legislation, which it does in secret; how those proposals are then negotiated, still in secret, in COREPER—the Committee of Permanent Representatives, bureaucrats appointed by the member states—and how the proposals then go to the Council of Ministers for further clandestine discussion; and to the EU Parliament, with its powers of codecision. Such a report would also explain why the appointment of the next President of the Commission is so important, which at the moment the people do not understand at all. They are beginning to cotton on that the whole project is wildly anti-democratic, but they do not know why. I think they should be told. The BBC refuses to do it, so I suggest that the first report of our new committee should fill this vital gap in our people’s understanding of our arrangements with the European Union. I look forward to the noble Lord’s reply.
The Chairman of Committees
The sting was in the tail, was it not? I shall deal with the questions not necessarily in the order they were asked.
The question about pensions raises a number of issues. I am grateful that both noble Lords who made the point about former EU commissioners did not personalise it and did not in any way attempt to say that there was any dishonourable behaviour attached to the activities of those Members. I think the whole House would recognise that. For the sake of clarification, the important point is that if a Member thinks there is the possibility of a conflict here, his route is to seek the advice of the registrar. I know that the registrar has been consulted on those issues in a general way previously and the registrar has taken the view—I think properly—that no conflict arises. I do not think any criticism can be placed on the activities of those Members who are in that position. I hope we have now heard the last of that. It is repeated from time to time, from year to year. There is now a clear, authoritative resolution of that point, and I hope we can move on.
On the representation of the UKIP voice, the Committee of Selection acts on the basis of names that come forward from the parties and from the Convenor on behalf of the Cross Benches. Clearly, under our system, three UKIP Members do not constitute a political group. However, if anybody thought that they had a claim or that their voice should rightly and properly be heard on a committee, they have direct access to the committee through writing to me. I would ensure that any letter advancing a name was placed before the Committee of Selection when the composition of a committee was being considered.
I do not, alas, follow the logic of the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. I take it he accepts the proposition of his leader that 75% of our laws are made, or are in effect made, by Brussels. I do not necessarily accept that figure, but if it is anywhere near that figure, I would have thought he would have been asking for more and greater scrutiny rather for a reduction in the number of scrutiny committees.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, the point I was trying to make to the noble Lord and your Lordships is that it does not matter what the committee or the Government think. They are routinely outvoted in Brussels. The scrutiny reserve is routinely overridden: 235 times in the past two years. I do not wish to prolong the debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his courteous—but, I am afraid, inadequate—reply.
House of Lords: Royal Gallery Frescos
Debate between Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Sewel
The Chairman of Committees
When it comes to the Royal Gallery, I do not know where my responsibilities end and Black Rod’s begin, but if it comes to stuffed-horses, the noble Lord had better ask Black Rod rather than me.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned a future visit of a French President. Will he give your Lordships an assurance that on that occasion no shroud of misplaced sensitivity will be placed on the pictures in order to spare the French President’s knowledge of history?
The Chairman of Committees
I do not think that that has ever been the case and the French Presidents that I have ever had any contact with have always remarked on how much they liked looking at the murals.
Deputy Chairmen of Committees
Debate between Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Sewel
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Sewel)
In moving the 27 Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper en bloc, I remind Members of your Lordships’ House that if there is an objection to any single Motion, I will be more than happy to move all 27 Motions separately.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, I rise again to query the usefulness of our proposed European Union Committee, and especially of its six sub-committees. I do so against the background of our Liaison Committee’s recent review of our committee structure, which was debated in your Lordships’ House on 21 March. This revealed that there were requests for no fewer than 28 ad hoc committees from your Lordships, of which only five could be accommodated. We could not even find the resources for a foreign affairs committee, which was widely supported, nor for a committee on preventing religiously based gender discrimination in arbitration and mediation services, which was supported in writing by 70 Peers.
I will very briefly repeat the case against this committee. First, its composition remains heavily, if not uniformly, Europhile, as it has been for the past 20 years, and therefore does nothing to reflect the growing Euroscepticism of the British people. Secondly, its findings are almost entirely ignored by Brussels, which routinely overrides our scrutiny reserve. That is the agreement whereby successive Governments have promised they will not sign up to any new EU law in Brussels if it is still being examined by the Select Committee of either House of Parliament.
Between January 2010 and June 2012 the scrutiny reserve was overridden 212 times in the House of Commons and 191 times in your Lordships’ House. Furthermore, the new “yellow card” system, whereby Brussels has to reconsider one of its new laws if eight national Parliaments object to it, is proving to be just as fraudulent as subsidiarity, as some of us forecast. If the Chairman of Committees does not agree with me, can he say what has happened to the proposals by Brussels for gender equality on company boards? Indeed, can he tell your Lordships of any new Brussels law that has been avoided by a yellow card?
I am aware that noble and Europhile Lords will claim that our reports are taken very seriously in Brussels and that Eurocrats can be seen reverently devouring our reports as they go about their unhelpful business, but the Government can point to hardly a single worthwhile case where our recommendations have been passed into European law—witness their Written Answer to me on 10 April. We are told that our committee has inspired the long-overdue reform of the criminal common fisheries policy, but if you put your ear to the ground in Brussels, you learn that this was inspired more by Mr Fearnley-Whittingstall’s television exposé than anything that our committee may have said. In passing, the answer is not to reform the CFP but simply to leave it and reclaim our great fishing industry.
Be all that as it may—and it is—I have to ask why we have seven EU sub-committees when so many subjects go uncovered by your Lordships’ acknowledged wisdom. Your Lordships’ committee reports on every other subject are respected by our media and of value to our people. I have to ask why we do not redistribute the resources of the six EU sub-committees and place them at the disposal of new ad hoc committees, for which there is a genuine need. I look forward to the noble Lord’s reply.
The Chairman of Committees
My Lords, it is reassuring to know that in these changing times there are some certainties about the nature of debate in your Lordships’ House. It is that time of year again.
First, I welcome the endorsement of the noble Lord for the new ad hoc Select Committees that have been established and I hope that we will be able to develop even more ad hoc Select Committees over the years ahead. However, that should not be at the cost of the EU Select Committee and its sub-committees. Indeed, I see a slight—to be generous—illogicality in the noble Lord’s position: given his views on the EU, I should have thought that he would have wanted bigger and better scrutiny of EU matters by your Lordships’ House. Therefore, the case is made for maintaining the present number of sub-committees.
Motions agreed.
Liaison Committee
Debate between Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Sewel
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Sewel)
My Lords, the Liaison Committee’s report this time last year reviewed existing Select Committee activity and recommended an additional unit of committee activity, and a reduction in the resources available to the European Union Committee and the Science and Technology Committee to enable the redeployment of resources to support two new ad hoc committees and the appointment of an ad hoc post-legislative scrutiny committee. Over the past two months, the Liaison Committee has reviewed existing Select Committee activity in the light of these changes. Both this year and last, we discussed the work of the Communications Committee with its chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and concluded that the Communications Committee should be appointed as a sessional committee at the start of the 2013-14 Session. I have to point out that there is no resource impact arising from this recommendation.
We also considered a proposal to extend the orders of reference of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy to enable it to appoint a sub-committee. The Joint Committee already meets more than the three to four times a year which was originally envisaged and is well supported by Members of your Lordships’ House. The House of Commons Liaison Committee considered the Joint Committee’s proposal for a power to establish a sub-committee at its meeting on 27 February, and declined to support it. The House of Lords Liaison Committee did not support an increase in the Joint Committee’s resources and instead suggested that further thought should be given to the size and composition of the Joint Committee’s membership.
Last year, we recommended that, from the start of the 2012-13 Session, the number of sub-committees of the European Union Committee should be reduced from seven to six. We also recommended that the Science and Technology Committee should be allocated the resource of a single Select Committee. As we acknowledged in our report, this decision caused considerable unhappiness. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, chairman of the Science and Technology Committee explained, previously, the committee had the resources to conduct two units of activity at once. The reduction in resource to three staff members had required the committee to undertake one unit of activity rather than two, and the committee no longer had a sub-committee. In the past, the committee has typically alternated a long inquiry with a short one. The committee has been severely constrained in the present Session by having to drop the second simultaneous inquiry.
We recognise the important contribution of the European Union Committee and Science and Technology Committee to the committee work of the House. We believe, however, that the restructuring of committee activity which took effect at the start of the present Session needs further time to bed down. The reduction in resources for the EU and Science and Technology Committee in the present Session enabled an expansion of ad hoc committee activity. This has been a step change for the House of Lords, and has included the first ever House of Lords post-legislative scrutiny committee. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, chairman of the Select Committee on Adoption Legislation, the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, chairman of the Select Committee on Small and Medium Sized Enterprises and Exports, and the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, chairman of the Select Committee on Public Service and Demographic Change, were unanimous in their enthusiasm for the work of their committees, the commitment of the members and the support provided by the committee staff. We consider that the three new ad hoc committees have worked very well during this Session.
I encouraged Members from all sides of the House to put forward ideas for new committee activity for the next Session, and was delighted by the response. We considered the proposals received against the criteria set out in the original Leader’s Group report on the matter. I am delighted to report that the House Committee has agreed in principle that funds can be made available to support the work of a further additional unit of committee activity in 2013-14. This is at a cost of approximately £225,000.
This increase in activity can be managed without affecting the House’s overall aim not to increase our resource costs in real terms, partly as a result of savings that have been made in other areas. As an example, Members will be aware of savings being made through reducing the number of days on which mail is forwarded and removing linen hand towels, and of significant savings being made by making more documents available online, thereby leading to the reduction in printing costs. I am fully aware that not all of these savings initiatives met with universal acclaim at the time, but it is true that the savings that we have made in these areas have enabled resource to be redirected to support the core activities of the House. That is something to recognise and support.
The new Select Committees that are going to be set up are in addition to the extra unit of committee activity agreed to by the House Committee and the House this time last year. The Liaison Committee also decided to recommend two shorter, ad hoc committee inquiries to run consecutively. This means that we have been able to recommend ad hoc committees on five subjects, as follows: first, a committee on the use of soft power in promoting the UK’s interests abroad; secondly, a committee on the strategic issues for regeneration and sporting legacy from the Olympics and Paralympic Games, to report by late 2013; thirdly, a committee on the consequences of the use of personal service companies for tax collection, following the completion of the work of the committee on the Olympic and Paralympic Games legacy; fourthly, a post-legislative scrutiny committee to examine the Mental Capacity Act 2005; and, fifthly, a post-legislative scrutiny committee to examine the Inquiries Act 2005. This is in addition to the important pre-legislative and other scrutiny committee activities.
As Chairman of Committees, I am all too well aware of the fact that it is impossible to please all your Lordships all the time. However, I know that the Liaison Committee has put in hard work in recent months to produce a report which, I hope, may please some of your Lordships for some of the time. On that basis, I beg to move.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
As the Liaison Committee is a committee of your Lordships’ House, could the noble Lord give a little more of the reasoning behind its failure to approve an ad hoc committee requested by my noble friend Lady Cox, who cannot be here today? The request was for an ad hoc committee into religiously sanctioned gender discrimination against women. I ask this question as one of the 70 Peers who supported that request. It is therefore surprising that the report that we are considering says that only two Peers supported the request, whereas in the letter from my noble friend Lady Cox to the committee of 22 November, she named three eminent Peers who supported her committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Dholakia, and said that 67 other Peers supported it. As far as I can see, of the committees that have been selected, not one was supported by a single other Peer. Therefore, I wonder whether the Liaison Committee has got this right.
Finally, I am sure that your Lordships would be disappointed if I did not bring the European Union into this somehow. Therefore, I once again must ask whether your Lordships really need seven European Union committees, whose suggestions and considerations are largely ignored in Brussels, whereas the House of Commons makes do with one European Scrutiny Committee. I have to ask the Liaison Committee to think again on this one—or, if not, to consider a request for this very widely supported and important committee at the earliest opportunity.
The Chairman of Committees
That might very well be the case, and I suggest that the starting-off point is to look at composition, size and mandate rather than giving the committee powers to appoint a sub-committee. The issue is much more fundamental than giving it the power to appoint a sub-committee. The remaining important and recurring point is that of a foreign affairs Select Committee. I acknowledge fully everything that has been said, and I am sure there will be proper and full discussion at the earliest opportunity.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, I want to raise a final point with which the noble Lord may agree, because we have discussed it. When reports, particularly from domestic committees, are put on to the Minute, would it not be helpful if there was some description of what they are about? We have had a full debate today, but all that is recorded on the Order Paper is that it concerns the first report of the Liaison Committee. Perhaps we could have some description of what is involved, and a period of notice for any debate. I would suggest possibly a week. Some of these committee reports are put on overnight, I would not dare to suggest, in the hope that they may just be nodded through. A brief description and a period of notice for these reports, most of which are extremely valuable, would help the House to debate them.
The Chairman of Committees
My Lords, the noble Lord has tabled two Questions for Written Answer for me on this very issue. In the spirit of openness, transparency, accountability, motherhood and apple pie, I hope that we can end this debate with a degree of agreement. However, the noble Lord has made a good point. It is right that rather than having a sort of sexy title such as, “That the First Report of the Liaison Committee be agreed to”, we should put on to the Order Paper a brief description of the main issues dealt with in the report. I hope that that is the essence of the reply I will make to the noble Lord when his Questions are answered, and I am sure that he will be at least partly satisfied today.
Administration and Works Committee
Debate between Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Sewel(11 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Chairman of Committees
Yes. Not to launch the report in the House; if the noble Lord has a press conference, it would be perfectly possible for him to have it in Millbank House. That would be allowable if the House accepts my suggestion, and if the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, accepts my suggestion, that he does not persist with his amendment, and we take back this report purely on the grounds of enabling the committee to consider the Millbank House option.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, further to that point; if Black Rod can decide what is and what is not a press conference, why can he not be trusted to decide where it should be held, particularly from the point of view of security, which may be vital to the event in question? It may be clearly more in the interests of security that it should be held in Committee Room G than in either Millbank House or Fielden House.
The Chairman of Committees
The extent to which we actually move decision-making away from the Chamber and on to Black Rod is a matter of fine judgment. There are some areas where that is perfectly reasonable, and seeking his advice on whether the meeting that was being held was a press conference, if the Member himself or herself was in doubt, would be helpful because it would mean that the Member was able to ensure that they were not breaching the rules by at least seeking the advice of Black Rod and acting upon it.
Clearly, though, with regard to the business of where that press conference should be held, the rule that we are trying to establish is that it is right to make a distinction between parliamentary press conferences, held to discuss and debate a publication, a report, of Parliament, which will be held within the Palace itself, and what are called platform press conferences where Parliament, quite properly and rightly, is being used to provide a platform for views expressed by people from beyond Parliament. The latter, although held within Parliament, would not be held within the Palace; they would be held in Millbank House or Fielden House, and on the whole people will feel very comfortable with that distinction.
The second argument is about capacity.
The Chairman of Committees
I am unaware of the precise rules that apply in the House of Commons, but as I understand it the House tends to deal with this matter by having a very strict rule about recording, photography and filming. That is the way in which it has dealt with the problem. There is a very strong ban, as I understand it, on filming in House of Commons Committee Rooms.
On capacity, I understand the concern that the rooms in Fielden House may not be large enough to accommodate a significantly populated press conference, though I have to say that in my experience that does not happen very often in this House. That is why I am very much attracted to the suggestion that we open up rooms in Millbank House, particularly the Archbishops’ Room, which is a large room that can accommodate events, and I would have thought that this would satisfy all the arguments on capacity. On that basis—
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
From what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has informed the House, which is why I put the question to him, the room in Millbank is no larger than the room in Fielden House. It is the same size, so what advantage can there be? We can have two press conferences, but a single large one still cannot be held.
The Chairman of Committees
I am reluctant to challenge the noble Lord on that issue. From my somewhat cursory examination of the rooms it looks quite a bit bigger to me, but never mind. As I say, I am more than happy to take the report back specifically on the use of Millbank House if the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, wishes to withdraw his amendment.
European Union
Debate between Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Sewel
The Chairman of Committees
My Lords, I am much more concerned about being able positively to influence policy development rather than seeking the post-hoc position of trying to change policy and legislation once it has been enacted. Surely it is much better that we are in there, bringing to bear the expertise of this House on issues of major European policy.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken: to the noble Lords, Lord Grenfell and Lord Hannay, and partially to the Chairman of Committees. They all said the same thing: that I had got it all wrong, that I had not understood that the EU Select Committee is there not to tell Brussels what to do but to hold the Government to account and to advise them how to act. Well, as a matter of fact, I am aware of that; my point is that the result is ineffectual, as witnessed by the 580 scrutiny overrides and so on. I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who said that the Government indeed reply, copiously, to all our Select Committee reports and that the Commission replies to the Government’s views. However, the result remains the same. On the example relating to fish that has been given by the Chairman of Committees, let us wait and see.
The amendment and the debate have been worth while. I have to disagree with my noble friend—if I may refer to him as such—Lord Tebbit in one regard. I agree that members of the European Union Select Committee are largely wasting their time, but I do not propose that they should go and dig their garden. Their energies should be redistributed around the other committees of your Lordships' House, particularly the ad hoc committees of the future, which will be increasingly important.
I am grateful to the Chairman of Committees for giving me some support and to the chairman of the Select Committee for not ruling out of order what I had to say. I am grateful, too, to both noble Lords for giving us the hope that future annual reports of your Lordships’ Select Committee may indeed include what I have requested. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his generous reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Liaison Committee: Third Report
Debate between Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Sewel(12 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, it will not come as a surprise to the House to hear that I fear that the Liaison Committee has got the importance of our European committees badly out of focus.
It is welcome that the European committees have been cut from eight—seven plus one—to one and six sub-committees. However, that still leaves 84 Members of your Lordships’ House on the sub-committees, a further 14 on the main committee, with the result that the time of 98 of your Lordships is taken by the European Select Committee. I have mentioned this before. There is a long series of Questions from the noble Lords, Lord Tebbit and Lord Vinson, answered by the Government, which show that the European Committee has virtually no influence on the legislation that comes to us from Brussels. As your Lordships know, that is quite a substantial proportion of our general legislation and easily the majority of—
Lord Sewel
There is the vexatious question of the reform of the common fisheries policy. Has the noble Lord looked at the Green Paper that the Fisheries Commissioner has published? Is he aware that it borrows—I dare not use the word “plagiarises”—significantly from the report of the committee of this House?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, I understand that the decision of the European Commission to review the common fisheries policy is due more to the series on television by Mr Fearnley-Whittingstall than to your Lordships’ Select Committee. And anyway, we await reform of the common fisheries policy, as we have for the past 30 years.
I do not want to turn this into a debate on the pluses and minuses of the European Union, but I want to explain to your Lordships why seven European committees is still far too many. I referred to the series of Questions from the noble Lords, Lord Tebbit and Lord Vinson, the answers to which show that the Select Committee has had virtually no influence on legislation coming to us from Brussels. That is not surprising. Your Lordships may be aware of the process of European legislation, which is proposed in secret by the Commission, negotiated in secret in COREPER and passed in secret in the Council. There is nothing that your Lordships’ House or the other place can do when it has gone through that process.
Global Economy
Debate between Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Sewel(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, my questions come against the background of the cuts generally and our perilous economic condition. They also feed in to our previous debate. My first question to the Minister is very simple. Do the Government accept their own figure of £9 billion a year, net cash, which we pay to Brussels, with no conceivable benefit to us? If they agree their own figure of £9 billion a year net, will they agree that that comes to some £25 million every day? The sum of £25 million a day would pay the salaries of 833 policemen every day, or 304,045 policemen per annum. I emphasise that that is net cash. I do not mention the costs of over-regulation of 6 per cent of GDP per annum in food and so on.
My second question is: do the Government admit that there would be no crisis in the eurozone without the euro? Do they also admit that there would be no eurozone without the ill-fated project of European integration? On the Statement, when they accepted the remorseless logic of a federal budget, which they appear to have done, are they convinced that the German people, the Dutch people and so on will put up with this? I think they may be mistaken.
Finally, how can they possibly say that the breakup of the euro would be economically disastrous, including for Britain? Could the noble Lord at least justify that because if we face the reality that the thing is going to break up—and the quicker we face it and the quicker it breaks up, the better—we would all be very much more comfortable?
Lord Sewel
My Lords, the Minister has rightly drawn attention to the weaknesses, indeed the failures, of the European political institutions in responding to the crisis. Would he care to reflect on the contribution of the political institutions of the United States to the present crisis? Could it possibly have something to do with the fact that they have a political structure based on two elected Chambers, one in which the Executive have a majority and one in which they do not? We have heard that somewhere before.
European Union Bill
Debate between Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Sewel(13 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, to come back to Amendments 16A and 16B, I oppose them because they make it possible for the Government of the day to avoid a referendum if they think that some new EU power grab, whatever it happens to be, is sufficiently urgent or if they think that it is in the national interest. I fear that the supporters of these amendments have not yet grasped the point that the British people do not want any more powers passed to Brussels, period, as the saying goes—full stop. In fact, a growing majority of the British people want all their powers back; they want to be a democracy again with the power to elect and dismiss those who make all their laws.
I am afraid that the amendments do not work in detail, either. Who is to decide the urgency of the decision or whether it is in the national interest? The octopus in Brussels of course, not the British Government or Parliament. To be certain of this, we have only to look at the way in which Brussels has treated both our Government and Parliament over many years. I refer of course to its constant indifference to our scrutiny reserve. I remind your Lordships for the record, and for those outside your Lordships’ House who may not know, what the scrutiny reserve is. It is a promise made to Parliament—to the House of Commons and your Lordships’ House—by Governments of all persuasions over many years that they will not sign up to any new law or initiative in Brussels if the Select Committee of either House is still considering it. If the Select Committees have finished looking at it or have agreed it, or if it has been debated in Parliament, the Government of the day are free to sign up in the Council of Ministers in Brussels to whatever initiative is concerned. That is the promise or scrutiny reserve.
A Written Answer to me from the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, on 7 February this year reveals that in the past five years alone the scrutiny reserve has been overridden—in other words, the Government’s promise has been broken—no fewer than 267 times in the House of Commons and 248 times in your Lordships’ House. That means that in the past five years more than 500 proposals from Brussels, which the Select Committee of either House thought sufficiently important to examine and to advise the Government on, became law anyway. The juggernaut rolled on regardless. It is worth adding that the situation does not appear to be improving, despite regular complaints from the Select Committees to the Government. In 2010, 151 overrides were notched up between the two Houses—79 in the House of Commons and 72 in your Lordships’ House.
Lord Sewel
Would the noble Lord be good enough to inform us how many of these—I forget the numbers, so could I be reminded?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, that is not the point. The point is that it will not be the British Government or this Parliament that makes the decisions covered by these amendments; Brussels will go on doing it.
It is partly this situation, together with the fact that Brussels pays almost no attention to what our Select Committees and Parliament manage to say when they are not being completely ignored, that has led me to suggest that perhaps we do not need quite the number of Select Committees that we have, although that is perhaps a debate for another day.
European Union Bill
Debate between Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Sewel(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
—would run a campaign to get us out of the EU? Who would have thought then that 373,000 of its readers would have signed a petition to leave? Most of those people took the trouble to fill in a small form, cut it out and post it to the Express. Does that not reveal quite a bit of energy? Now there is a new campaign, the people’s pledge, launched last week. It is an all-party national campaign, led from the left, which asks people to sign a pledge online that at the next general election they will vote only for a candidate who promises to support an in/out referendum on our EU membership. It includes people who believe we should—
Lord Sewel
Could I renew to the noble Lord the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, to get on with the Bill?